SF Sizes

[Brucepts]

Maybe the extra cost is the storage box?

Humm, might have to look into a storage box . . .

[1960FL]

Honest Chad, I will think about this and discuss with Bruce, if I can think about how we could use these plates to put an end to this and truly develop some sort of real industry standard I will underwrite the cost to have a set available. My office is only 2 miles from NIST i looked at what it would take to have a couple of Bruce's plates Certified Kind of out there $10K for direct certification. I have been looking to purchase NIST tractable Orifice plates and that sent me down the path of Nozzles and a 1.5" ASME/Nist Nozzle is about $700 and then what? I will continue to research this.

My issue is if we go down the ASME/NIST rout (which i think i must) we will be the standard but then there will still be the discrepancy with SF, so we will still need to develop some form of comparative calibration and that can come from two routs and maybe i am answering my own question here

SF calibration set => PTS/SF calibration Plate + Calibration (But still no standard)

ASME/NIST Nozzle or NIST traceable Orifice => Validate PTS Plate set => Chad Flow PTS Validated set => PTS/SF Calibration Plate => Validate Data (I would provide source of Nozzle or plate to all)

Then Attempt to get the Top Guys with SF benches to do a Flow Around (Test Items to be Determined? PTS validation plate? Nozzle? etc?)

If you guys think we could truly start to create an accepted standard I will Underwrite it!

Rick

[Chad Speier]

SuperFlow offers a full set of 18 orifice calibration plates. These plates are NIST traceable and they are ideal for ISO or quality certifications. 18 plates??? hmmm. So I guess the price isn't totally insane, just why is there 18 plates??

OK, now I'm really confused! I flowed a head with the manometers on the SF, and then directly over to the PTS. I put the plate on the SF and recorded the cfm, then I made the PTS read the same cfm. The results were shocking to say the least. (I'm saying this quietly) Is the design of the SF the issue? How could this be???

The SF plate was read on #5 hole and the PTS has a 2.500 orifice plate. This could be some of it!

SF w/manometers 356 cfm plate reads 346.7 cfm

.200 135.6
.300 199.0
.400 246.5
.500 278.4
.600 286.6
.700 289.6
.800 296.3
.900 298.9

PTS w/356 cfm plate reading 356.6 cfm

.200 143.6
.300 210.3
.400 257.8
.500 290.8
.600 299.6
.700 303.7
.800 310.7
.900 315.8

PTS w/356 cfm plate reading 346.7 cfm

.200 143.2
.300 206.4
.400 235.6
.500 280.9
.600 292.4
.700 294.8
.800 300.6
.900 305.7

[blaktopr]

What about the same test on #4, closer to the range of that cfm.

[1960FL]

OK! I will try to make some sense of all these numbers, Section one is the data as Chad posted it, Delta is just the measured change in flow for each step in valve opening, Diff is the ABS (difference) in CFM for each step against SF data.

Section two tells the story in my opinion, I throw out the adjusted calibration as it seams to mess the numbers up or something went wrong. But if you look at the Delta and Delta Diff you see that both benches track very linear an average of with 1.2% across the range; Astonishing.

Now if we go back to day one we see that if the SF bench is calibrated to the PTS plate it is within >2% Difference from the PTS bench! The Spike differences can be attributed to air turbulence etc within the bench but the fact is they are more than close and linear.

This run and data clearly show that the combination of fluid differences (Oil) vs water (lots of room for error SG, Scale etc and lack of calibration of the incline and Depression are a majority of the issue.

I like Chris would like to see #4 And Chad is this the same head as in test one if so why the difference on the PTS Bench?

Last I would love to see water against both the incline and depression to see just how close they are?

Rick

I think this shows it is all just calibration.

[Chad Speier]

The 300cfm head was a different head I was flowing. I will flow it all on #4 and post results.

I have a question. Don't you guys think the PTS DM will be a better fit on my PTS bench and put my FP on the SF? I think this is logical because it was designed around that concept and Larry Meaux has has success with the FP on his SF.

Trust me they will both get used daily!

[Brucepts]

I think this is logical because it was designed around that concept and Larry Meaux has has success with the FP on his SF.

Might want to check with Larry on that . . . . just say'in

[Chad Speier]

I think this is logical because it was designed around that concept and Larry Meaux has has success with the FP on his SF.

Might want to check with Larry on that . . . . just say'in

Yep, change of plans...

[Chad Speier]

I'm not sure I did this right, but is it telling us anything?

OK, I put a head on it. #3 hole, 28" w/100% manometer, in manometer mode, 13.4 across the plate.

[1960FL]

Yep, change of plans...

So Chad you now have an FP1 for sale?

Looking forward to more numbers and do you think you could get a water reading on the depression side as well?

Rick